The commission said the suspects were arrested on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, as part of investigations into allegations of conflict of interest, unlawful acquisition of public property, money laundering and dealing with proceeds of crime involving Sh92,058,890.30.

The suspects are Betty Emathe Asimit, a Senior Assistant Community Health Officer at the Turkana County Government; Moses Long’ole Apua, director of Apuco Holdings Group Limited; and Chosi Nick Nakucho, an employee of Mary’s Meals Kenya.

They are expected to be arraigned before the Anti-Corruption Court in Eldoret on Thursday, August 27, 2026.

According to EACC, its investigations established that Peter Long’ole Apua, a Principal Finance Officer and Principal Accountant at the Turkana County Government, was a signatory to the bank account of Apuco Holdings Group Limited.

The commission said Apua also participated in the processing and validation of payments made to the company, which received Sh62,047,757.30 from the county government.

Separately, EACC said investigations established that Lilian Akiru Louruka, an employee of the Turkana County Government and director of Natitlila Company Limited, used the company to secure five contracts from the county government valued at Sh30,011,133.

“The investigations further established that funds paid to the two companies were subsequently withdrawn in cash, in transactions suspected to have been intended to conceal the movement and ultimate beneficiaries of the funds,” EACC said.

The commission said the companies received the combined Sh92,058,890.30 between the 2013/2014 and 2024/2025 financial years.

EACC said it had earlier forwarded the inquiry file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who approved prosecution of eight public officials, companies and company directors.

The commission has directed five other suspects to immediately present themselves at its North Rift Regional Office in Eldoret or the nearest EACC office for processing.

They are Peter Long’ole Apua, Christopher Imuron Apua, Nicholas Lotit Korobe, Julius Ayapan Adir and Lilian Akiru Louruka.

EACC said that in addition to criminal proceedings, it will pursue the recovery and forfeiture of public funds and assets established to have been acquired through corrupt conduct or other unlawful means.

“EACC remains committed to safeguarding public resources and ensuring that public officers entrusted with public funds are held accountable where they abuse their positions for private benefit,” the commission said.

The post EACC arrests Turkana officials over alleged Sh92 million conflict of interest appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Mutegi appeared before Milimani Anti-Corruption Chief Magistrate Harrison Baraza on Monday August 24,2026 and pleaded not guilty to two corruption charges of requesting Sh170,000 and receiving Sh150,000 to influence the outcome of a criminal sentence

The court subsequently released him on a Sh400,000 cash bail or an alternative bond of Sh800,000 pending the hearing and determination of the case.

As part of the bail terms, Barasa ordered Mutegi not to interfere directly or indirectly with any prosecution witness during the pendency of the trial.

Mutegi’s plea was taken after Chief Magistrate Barasa rejected an attempt by his lawyers to stop or defer the proceedings.

The defence had sought to have the plea-taking delayed pending the determination of a separate application before the High Court.

However, Barasa found that there was no court order before him barring the Anti-Corruption Court from proceeding with the case.

The court consequently directed Mutegi to take plea and respond to the charges against him.

According to the charge sheet, Mutegi allegedly requested Sh170,000 between July 16 and July 21, 2026, through Kangema Law Courts Principal Probation Officer Julius Irungu Njogu.

The money was allegedly sought in exchange for influencing the sentence of a convicted businessman who was due to appear before Mutegi for sentencing in Kangema Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No. E645 of 2024.

The prosecution alleges that the accused magistrate sought the money to facilitate a favourable outcome that would enable the convicted businessman to avoid a custodial sentence.

The second count alleges that Mutegi received Sh150,000 on July 21, 2026, through Njogu, as part of the alleged bribery arrangement.

The alleged offences are said to have occurred between July 16 and July 21, 2026, in Kangema Township, Murang’a County.

The case followed a complaint lodged by the businessman, who told investigators that Njogu had approached him claiming to be acting on behalf of Mutegi.

Njogu allegedly demanded Sh170,000 and indicated that the money would help secure a favourable probation report and sentence.

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) subsequently mounted a sting operation to investigate the allegations.

Mutegi and Njogu were arrested on July 21, 2026, at a restaurant in Kangema Township after allegedly receiving Sh150,000 from the complainant.

The arrest prompted disciplinary action against Mutegi within the Judiciary.

Chief Justice Martha Koome, acting in her capacity as chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission, suspended Mutegi on July 22 and commenced disciplinary proceedings against him under the Judicial Service Act.

Mutegi had earlier failed to appear before the Anti-Corruption Court to take plea.

His lawyers informed the court that he was unwell and had been admitted to hospital, prompting the court to defer the plea-taking and order him to appear at a later date.

The court later issued summons requiring him to attend and answer to the charges.

His co-accused, Julius Irungu Njogu, the Kangema Law Courts Principal Probation Officer, had already been arraigned in connection with the alleged scheme.

Njogu pleaded not guilty to two counts of receiving a bribe and was released on a Sh400,000 cash bail or an alternative Sh800,000 bond.

The matter will return to court for mention on September 7, 2026 for pre-trial directions

The post Suspended Kangema Magistrate Denies Bribery Charges, Freed on Bail appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has filed an objection to a Petition of Appeal by Huelands Limited and Afrison Export Import Limited, challenging the July 3, 2026 decision of the Court of Appeal over disputed land parcel LR No. 7879/4 in Ruaraka.

The parcel partly hosts Drive In Primary School and Ruaraka High School.

In the objection filed on August 4, EACC, listed as the seventh respondent in Supreme Court Petition No. E025 of 2026, argues that the two companies have failed to meet the constitutional threshold required to invoke the apex court’s jurisdiction.

The Commission wants the petition struck out, accusing the companies of attempting to introduce new constitutional questions while asking the Supreme Court to revisit factual findings that have already been settled by the lower courts.

“The Petition of Appeal is misconceived, frivolous, and vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court, as it fails to satisfy the threshold for invoking this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution,” EACC advocate Jackie Kibogy states.

At the heart of the dispute is about 13.5 acres occupied by the two public schools and whether the land was private property subject to compulsory acquisition and compensation or had already become public land after being surrendered to the Government.

Court records show Afrison Export Import Limited and Huelands Limited acquired the larger 96-acre parcel from Joreth Limited in 1981.

The companies were closely associated with the late businessman Francis Mburu, who featured prominently in compensation claims and subsequent court proceedings over the property.

The dispute intensified after the National Land Commission moved to compulsorily acquire about 13.77 acres occupied by Drive In Primary School and Ruaraka High School.

The NLC valued the portion at Sh3.269 billion and subsequently paid Sh1.5 billion to the two companies, leaving a balance of about Sh1.769 billion.

The payment triggered public controversy, parliamentary scrutiny and a series of legal proceedings over whether public funds had been lawfully used to compensate the companies for land already belonging to the State.

EACC challenged the legality of the payment, arguing that the portion occupied by the schools had already been surrendered to the Government as a condition attached to the subdivision of the original parcel.

The issue eventually found its way through the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal.

The latest chapter began with a 2018 reference before the Environment and Land Court filed by then-NLC chairperson Prof Muhammad Swazuri.

The reference sought, among other issues, to establish whether the process through which the land occupied by the schools was acquired complied with the Constitution and whether public money had been lost.

The Environment and Land Court subsequently determined issues surrounding the disputed land, prompting Huelands and Afrison to move to the Court of Appeal.

On July 3, 2026, the appellate court ruled against the two companies, holding that approximately 13.5 acres occupied by the schools was public land and that the compulsory acquisition and Sh1.5 billion compensation were unlawful.

EACC subsequently announced that it would pursue recovery of the Sh1.5 billion.

The companies have now moved to the Supreme Court through Petition of Appeal No. E025 of 2026, challenging the Court of Appeal decision.

EACC’s objection is built around nine grounds, principally arguing that the appeal does not raise a proper constitutional question capable of triggering the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a).

The Commission accuses the appellants of seeking to introduce constitutional issues that were neither pleaded nor canvassed before the lower courts.

According to EACC, the companies are relying on constitutional provisions that were not considered or determined by the Environment and Land Court or the Court of Appeal.

The watchdog argues that the Supreme Court cannot be used as a forum to introduce fresh constitutional questions that were never litigated before the courts below.

EACC also objects to the companies’ challenge to the finding that the 13.5 acres were surrendered as a condition attached to the subdivision of the original parcel.

The Commission says both the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal made concurrent findings on the issue.

It argues that the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating evidence merely because an appellant is dissatisfied with findings made by the lower courts.

“Having made concurrent findings of fact on that issue, the Petition of Appeal seeks to invite this Honourable Court to re-evaluate the evidence and interfere with those findings, contrary to its appellate jurisdiction,” EACC states.

The Commission therefore wants the Supreme Court to reject what it considers an attempt to turn a factual dispute into a constitutional appeal.

Another central issue in the objection is the legal distinction between surrender of land and compulsory acquisition.

The companies have challenged the consequences of the lower courts’ finding that part of the property had been surrendered, apparently maintaining that the taking of the land amounted to compulsory acquisition for which compensation was payable.

EACC rejects that argument, maintaining that surrender and compulsory acquisition have different legal consequences.

“Surrender and compulsory acquisition are distinct legal concepts recognized under the Constitution and the law,” the Commission states.

It relies on Article 62(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides that public land includes land that has been surrendered to the State by virtue of a condition imposed by a law or instrument.

EACC’s position is that the legal character of the 13.5 acres cannot be changed from surrendered land to compulsorily acquired private property simply because the companies disagree with the lower courts’ findings.

The Commission maintains that the issue was fully considered and determined by the courts below and cannot now be reopened through a fresh constitutional argument before the Supreme Court.

The Ruaraka dispute has attracted considerable public interest because of the billions of shillings involved and the fact that the contested property hosts public schools.

The controversy has also placed the conduct of public institutions under scrutiny, particularly the National Land Commission and its handling of compensation claims.

The legal battle has consequently drawn in several government agencies and individuals.

Besides EACC, the Supreme Court petition lists the National Land Commission, Nairobi City County Government, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Patrick Thoithi Kanyuira among the respondents.

EACC is asking the Supreme Court to strike out the Petition of Appeal in its entirety.

Alternatively, the Commission wants the court to dismiss the appeal with costs, arguing that it is otherwise devoid of merit and does not disclose a genuine constitutional question warranting the intervention of the apex court.

At the centre of the objection is the constitutional limit on the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

EACC’s case is that the apex court is not another forum for parties to reopen factual disputes or introduce constitutional questions that were never litigated and determined by the courts below.

The companies, however, have moved to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, setting the stage for another legal battle over the disputed Ruaraka property.

The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is therefore whether Huelands and Afrison have satisfied the constitutional threshold for the court to hear their appeal.

If EACC succeeds, the petition will be struck out without the Supreme Court determining the substantive issues raised by the two companies.

The post EACC moves to block fresh Supreme Court appeal over Ruaraka schools land appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Mutava, the husband of Kibwezi East MP Jessica Mbalu, died at about 4am on Saturday while being rushed to Makindu Hospital in Makueni County, his family has confirmed.

According to the family, Mutava was in good spirits on Friday and attended the burial ceremony of a close family friend.

By the following morning, the former judge was dead.

For a man who spent years in the corridors of power and justice, Mutava’s final chapter was as dramatic as much of his legal career.

He had served on the High Court bench before becoming one of the few judges in Kenya’s post-2010 constitutional era to be subjected to a tribunal under Article 168 of the Constitution and ultimately removed from office.

Years later, after returning to private legal practice, he again found himself in the sights of anti-corruption investigators.

His name resurfaced in March 2026 when the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission arrested him over allegations surrounding an alleged Sh10.4 million attempt to influence the outcome of a commercial dispute involving former Cabinet minister Raphael Tuju.

Interesting, his death comes days after the DPP on July 20,2026 ordered the EACC to close investigations against him into the bribery allegations in Tuju’s case.

Mutava was appointed a Judge of the High Court on August 23, 2011.

His tenure on the bench, however, was short-lived.

Between March 2012 and March 2013, the Judicial Service Commission received 13 complaints concerning his conduct.

The complaints related to several cases that he had handled or was alleged to have influenced.

The complaints eventually triggered one of the most closely watched judicial disciplinary processes under the 2010 Constitution.

The JSC investigated the complaints and concluded that some met the threshold for further action.

On May 20, 2013, it petitioned the then President Uhuru Kenyatta to suspend Mutava and appoint a tribunal to investigate his conduct.

The tribunal was eventually constituted under Article 168 of the Constitution.

At the centre of the proceedings was a controversial case involving businessman Kamlesh Mansukhlal Damji Pattni.

Mutava was accused of causing Nairobi High Court Miscellaneous Judicial Review Application No. 305 of 2012 involving Pattni to be allocated to him irregularly and without the knowledge or consent of the duty judge and the head of the Judicial Review Division.

He was further accused of retrieving the file from the Judicial Review Division and taking it to the High Court in Kericho.

Another allegation was that he proceeded to write a judgment in the Pattni case while the JSC was investigating complaints against him relating to the same matter.

The tribunal also examined allegations concerning another commercial dispute, Sehit Investments Ltd against Josephine Akoth Onyango and three others.

Mutava was accused of soliciting Sh2.5 million on behalf of retired Justice Leonard Njagi and of attempting to influence the judge through telephone calls and text messages.

These were serious allegations, and the tribunal’s proceedings placed the conduct of a serving High Court judge under unprecedented scrutiny.

In its report dated September 20, 2016, the tribunal found that three of the allegations against Mutava had been proved to the required standard and concluded that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct contrary to Article 168(1)(e) of the Constitution.

It recommended his removal from office.

Mutava did not accept the decision.

Instead, he embarked on a legal battle that eventually reached the country’s highest court.

The Supreme Court case became significant in its own right because it gave the apex court an opportunity to define the scope of its appellate jurisdiction over tribunals established to investigate judges.

In March 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed Mutava’s appeal and affirmed the tribunal’s findings and recommendation for his removal.

The five-judge bench comprised then Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Jackton Ojwang, Njoki Ndungu and Isaac Lenaola.

The court held that the tribunal had established two of the allegations against Mutava to the required standard.

The Supreme Court specifically affirmed the finding that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct under Article 168(1)(e) and upheld the tribunal’s recommendation that he be removed from office.

The decision was historic.

The Supreme Court itself later described the case as the first time it exercised its jurisdiction under Article 168(8) to determine an appeal arising from a tribunal appointed to investigate the conduct of a judge.

The court said it had a duty to re-evaluate and reassess the evidence before determining whether the tribunal had misdirected itself.

The decision therefore became an important reference point in discussions about judicial accountability and the removal of judges.

For Mutava personally, however, it marked the end of his career on the High Court bench.

One of the most enduring chapters of Mutava’s judicial career was his involvement in the Pattni matter.

The case involved Kamlesh Pattni, the businessman associated with the Goldenberg scandal, one of Kenya’s biggest financial scandals.

The tribunal’s concern was not simply the outcome of the case but the circumstances surrounding its allocation and Mutava’s handling of it.

The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the finding concerning the irregular allocation of the case and other misconduct allegations.

The case would remain attached to Mutava’s public record long after he left the bench.

The controversy also touched his family.

Jessica Mbalu, who was then Mutava’s wife and is now the Kibwezi East MP, testified before the tribunal during the proceedings.

Her evidence became part of the broader examination of the allegations against her husband.

The proceedings attracted considerable public attention because of the unusual circumstances of a sitting judge facing allegations involving people connected to cases before the courts, while his spouse was also a public figure.

The tribunal ultimately proceeded to make its findings against Mutava.

Removal from the Judiciary did not end Mutava’s legal career.

He continued practising law as an advocate, remaining active in legal circles.

But the controversies surrounding him did not entirely disappear.

In March 2026, almost a decade after the tribunal proceedings, Mutava was again thrust into the national spotlight after his arrest by EACC detectives.

This time, the matter involved Tuju and a commercial dispute before the High Court.

On March 9, 2026, EACC detectives arrested Mutava alongside advocate Kimani Wachira and two other suspects over allegations of soliciting a Sh10.4 million bribe to influence the outcome of a commercial dispute involving Tuju.

The suspects were held at the EACC Integrity Centre and were later released on Sh200,000 police cash bail each.

The commission was expected to forward the investigation file to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration who later returned the file with instruction of closure with no further action.

The alleged scheme centred on a dispute involving Tuju’s properties and a High Court case.

Mutava’s arrest came on the same day Justice Josephine Mongare delivered a ruling in the commercial dispute.

Another lawyer arrested in connection with the investigation later challenged the manner in which the case had been handled, denying involvement in bribery and arguing that the events had been misconstrued.

That dispute remained unresolved when Mutava died.

But beyond the cases and controversies, Mutava was also a husband, father, colleague, lawyer and member of a family.

His sudden death at about 4am on Saturday has now closed that chapter.

The circumstances surrounding his final hours remain known only to his family and the medical professionals who attempted to save him.

What is already clear is that Joseph Mbalu Mutava leaves behind a legal legacy that will continue to be debated,not only because of the controversies that defined his judicial career, but also because of the constitutional precedents arising from the battle that followed his removal.

For Kenya’s legal fraternity, his death marks the passing of a former judge whose name became woven into some of the country’s most consequential debates about judicial conduct, accountability and the limits of judicial power.

And for the Mbalu family, the legal battles and public controversies are now secondary to a much more immediate reality: the sudden loss of a husband and family man who, according to his relatives, was alive and full of life only hours before his death.

The post Sacked Judge Joseph Mbalu Mutava Dies appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The commission said the suspects are linked to the alleged loss of Sh1,569,582,338.20 from the Rural Outreach of Financial Innovations and Technologies (PROFIT) Programme, implemented by the National Treasury with funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

According to EACC, investigations established that the money was fraudulently disbursed from the National Treasury Development Account to the PROFIT Programme before being channelled to 23 private entities, 15 business names and eight companies for goods and services that were allegedly never supplied or rendered.

The programme was implemented between the 2013/2014 and 2023/2024 financial years and was intended to improve access to affordable financing for small-scale farmers.

EACC said investigators also uncovered the use of false and forged documents to account for the funds.

The commission further said programme officials opened an unauthorised KCB Bank account in the name of the PROFIT Programme, through which Sh175 million was received, laundered and allegedly embezzled, with a substantial portion subsequently withdrawn in cash.

“EACC investigations established that KES 1.569 billion was fraudulently disbursed from the National Treasury Development Account to the PROFIT Programme and subsequently channeled to 23 private entities, 15 business names and eight companies, for goods and services that were never supplied or rendered,” the commission said.

Investigators also established financial links between programme officials and some of the private entities that received the funds, which EACC said appeared to contravene public financial management and accountability requirements.

The commission said it completed investigations and forwarded the inquiry file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who approved the prosecution of 20 public officials, companies and company directors.

The suspects face charges including unlawful acquisition of public property, abuse of office, money laundering, acquisition of proceeds of crime and uttering false documents, among other offences.

Among those arrested are PROFIT Programme Coordinator John Ngure Kabutha, National Treasury Head of Accounting Unit Namwel Moturi Motanya, and Senior Accountant John Maina Muriithi.

The other suspects are business owners and directors Gladys Juliet Oroni, Brian Kiprop Chepkarat, Ian Kwemoi Chepkarat, Josephat Kamau Kamoshe, James Omwodo Ndai and Jimmy Carter Odoyo Osodo.

The nine are expected to be arraigned before the Milimani Law Courts on Wednesday, August 19, 2026.

EACC has also directed 11 other suspects to immediately present themselves at its Integrity Centre in Nairobi or the nearest EACC office for processing.

The commission said it would pursue recovery and forfeiture of public funds and assets established to have been acquired through corrupt conduct or other unlawful means.

The arrests come after earlier EACC investigations into the PROFIT programme, which was designed to expand access to financial services for rural households and smallholder farmers.

IFAD describes PROFIT as a programme aimed at improving access to innovative financial products and increasing incomes among poor rural households.

The post EACC Arrests Nine Over Alleged Sh1.57bn Treasury Scandal appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The suspects, identified as Faith Gathoni Njoroge and Tyson Marango Owuor, are attached to KRA’s Upper Hill offices in Nairobi.

According to EACC, the arrests followed a complaint from a taxpayer who alleged that the two officials demanded Sh3 million in exchange for influencing the resolution of a Capital Gains Tax assessment valued at Sh4.5 million.

Following the complaint, anti-graft investigators mounted an operation during which the two suspects were allegedly caught receiving Sh900,000, said to be part of the demanded bribe.

The cash was recovered as evidence and the suspects taken into custody.

EACC said the two are currently being processed at the Integrity Centre as investigations continue.

The Commission indicated that appropriate action will be taken under the Anti-Bribery Act, 2016, upon completion of the investigations.

The post EACC Arrests Two KRA Officers Over Alleged Sh900,000 Bribery Deal appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a judgment delivered on Friday, a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Martha Koome dismissed appeals by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA), upholding a Court of Appeal decision in Aboo’s favour, whose three Equity Bank accounts holding a total of Sh19,688,152.35 had been targeted for forfeiture by the State.

Aboo, who is the spouse of a former Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) employee, had contested the attempted forfeiture of the funds, which investigators alleged were proceeds of crime.

The Supreme Court affirmed that investigators must establish a clear link between suspected criminal activity and any property targeted for forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA).

At the centre of the dispute were three Equity Bank accounts at the Donholm branch containing a combined Sh19,688,152.35.

The ARA moved to recover the funds after receiving information in March 2017 that the money was suspected to be proceeds of crime.

The agency linked the funds to Aboo’s husband, Alex Mukhwana Khisa, then a KRA officer who had been investigated over allegations that he solicited bribes from clearing and forwarding agents.

However, the EACC’s parallel investigations into Khisa were later closed, while preservation orders obtained against him were vacated in January 2018.

In response to inquiries on the source of the funds, Aboo said the money came from her businesses dealing in agricultural produce, transport, perfumes and cereals. She also provided investigators with the identities of her business associates

The Supreme Court found that the agencies failed to sufficiently investigate or challenge her explanation.

“Instead of discounting the respondent’s explanation by investigating these sources, all the 2nd appellant stated in rebuttal was that the respondent had not produced any receipts to back up her claim,” CJ Koome led bench said

The bench held that an element of crime must form the basis of any forfeiture proceedings.

“A reading of the foregoing provisions leaves no doubt that an order for forfeiture under POCAMLA can only be made against property which, in one way or another, is associated with the commission of a crime, or is a proceed of crime. The incidence of crime remains central to such forfeiture proceedings,” the court held.

“It is therefore a requirement that the ARA has to establish a nexus between the subject matter of forfeiture and a crime or its intended commission when seeking an order of forfeiture.”

The judges noted that the agencies’ suspicions were largely based on the existence of substantial amounts of money in Aboo’s accounts and allegations previously made against her husband.

They questioned the evidence linking the funds to criminal activity.

“What is there on record to show that the monies in question were obtained by Aboo as a result of an offence or criminal activity?” the judges asked.

They added: “Where is the evidence on record to support such an allegation by the very institution that closed further investigations into the accusations of bribery against the respondent’s husband? Where is the incidence of crime in the entire chain of events that triggered the forfeiture proceedings?”

The Supreme Court further held that where an agency alleges that property constitutes proceeds of crime generated by a third party, that person should be joined in the proceedings.

“We are of the considered view that the requirement for a nexus between the impugned property and the alleged criminal conduct under the forfeiture scheme in POCAMLA makes it critical that the person alleged to have generated the proceeds of crime, in this case, the respondent’s husband, ought to be joined to the proceedings,” the court stated.

The ruling is expected to shape future civil asset recovery proceedings by clarifying that although forfeiture cases are civil in nature, investigators must still demonstrate a connection between property and criminal activity before assets can be seized by the State.

The post Supreme Court Rejects EACC, ARA Bid to Forfeit Pamela Aboo’s Sh19.6 Million appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The governor appeared before the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) detectives following mounting concerns about questionable tender awards and procurement processes within the county government.

The probe centers on several major contracts awarded between 2022 and 2024, including road construction projects, medical equipment supplies, and county infrastructure development.

According to documents seen by investigators, the procurement irregularities involve inflated project costs, non-competitive tendering processes, and payments made to suppliers who allegedly failed to deliver goods and services.

Some contracts were reportedly awarded to companies linked to county officials and their associates.

Governor Otuoma, who took office in 2022, has maintained his innocence, stating that his administration has operated within the law and followed all due procurement procedures.

“I have cooperated fully with the investigators and provided all the documentation they requested. We have nothing to hide,” the governor said in a brief statement after recording his statement.

The investigation has also roped in several county officials, including members of the procurement committee, finance officers, and heads of various departments.

At least six county employees have already been questioned, with some asked to provide documents detailing how specific tenders were awarded.

The probe follows complaints from contractors and civil society groups who raised concerns about the transparency of procurement processes in the county.

Auditor General reports had also flagged several procurement irregularities in Busia County over the past two financial years.

EACC spokesman confirmed that investigations are ongoing and that more individuals could be summoned to assist with inquiries.

The commission has emphasized that no one will be spared if found culpable of corruption or economic crimes.

Busia County Assembly members have called for transparency in the investigations and urged all implicated officials to cooperate with authorities.

The assembly’s Public Accounts Committee has also launched its own inquiry into the procurement concerns.

If charges are preferred and convictions secured, those found guilty could face hefty fines, jail terms, and disqualification from holding public office under Kenya’s anti-corruption laws.

The investigation continues as authorities seek to recover any public funds that may have been lost through the alleged irregular procurement processes.

The post Busia Governor Records Statement Over KSh 1.4B Procurement Probe appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In Murang’a town, EACC operatives arrested Police Constable Kelvin Mwangi of the Murang’a Traffic Base following a surveillance operation along the busy Kenol–Murang’a Road.

The operation by the anti-graft agency on Tuesday was prompted by multiple complaints from motorists about rampant bribery at traffic stops.

During the arrest, officers recovered KSh 6,450 in small denominations inluding Sh 50, Sh100 reportedly collected within a span of two hours.

Mwangi was taken to the EACC Central Regional Offices for processing and later booked at Nyeri Police Station, where he was released on cash bail as investigations continue.

His colleague, PC Mathew Osike, managed to escape but remains under investigation.

The operation also disrupted another suspected bribery point along the Kerugoya–Kutus Road near Bekam, where traffic officers reportedly fled into nearby bushes, abandoning official police attire.

Meanwhile, on the Coast, EACC officers arrested Police Corporal Haroun Mazera Chamutu of the Mtwapa Traffic Base for allegedly soliciting bribes along the Mombasa–Malindi Highway.

Investigators recovered Sh13,750 in various denominations from the suspect.

Chamutu was taken to the EACC Upper Coast Regional Office in Malindi for statement recording and further processing.

These arrests are part of a broader nationwide crackdown on corruption in essential public services, with a focus on traffic policing during the festive season.

The EACC says it is scaling up intelligence gathering and surveillance to ensure integrity, accountability, and professionalism among public officers.

“We will not tolerate corruption, especially in sectors that directly interact with the public. Members of the public are encouraged to report any corrupt practices through our reporting channels,” the Commission said in a statement on X

The EACC has vowed continued operations across the country, warning that traffic officers and other public servants involved in bribery will face swift legal action.

The post EACC Cracks Down on Traffic Bribery, Arrests Officers in Murang’a and Mtwapa appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Speaking on Monday during a Special Council Meeting of the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ), Koome emphasized the urgent need for public cooperation, coordinated enforcement, and respect for the law to curb road carnage.

“Do not pay any bribe when arrested. There will be heightened monitoring of human rights violations,” Justice Koome said, highlighting that enforcement agencies will closely watch operations to ensure accountability and protect citizens’ rights.

The Chief Justice highlighted that risky road behaviour, particularly speeding, tends to spike during holiday travel.

“We note the risky road behaviour which includes speeding, and we were asking one another if, when going for celebrations during this season, we forget that where we are going, whether it is to celebrate in our rural homes or wherever, those destinations do not move, so that we speed away,” she said.

The warning comes amid a worrying rise in road traffic deaths, from 4,479 in 2024 to 4,682 in 2025, a 5% increase, as authorities anticipate heavier traffic, congestion, and a spike in accidents during the holiday season.

“Risky behaviour such as speeding, fatigue, overlapping, and drunk driving continues to claim lives unnecessarily. Most victims are often innocent pedestrians or motorists,” Koome added.

Koome called for collaboration across the justice system and among road users, stressing that public awareness and coordinated enforcement were critical to saving lives.

“We are asking for collaboration and awareness about our own safety when we set out for the festivities. For seamless coordination, we need to work together—all of us in the justice system,” she said.

The NCAJ, which brings together the National Police Service, ODPP, Judiciary, NTSA, Kenya Prisons Service, EACC, LSK, and other agencies, has outlined a comprehensive multi-agency plan to enhance road safety.

Central to this initiative is the deployment of mobile traffic courts that will operate on both physical and digital platforms to fast-track cases during the festive period.

“Those charged will quickly get in touch with their lawyers through this system,” Koome noted.

Authorities will also increase roadblocks and inspections for vehicles and motorbikes, particularly along high-risk corridors, to ensure compliance with roadworthiness standards.

Motorists are being warned against overlapping, speeding, and drunk driving, while the public is urged to report violations and emergencies via toll-free numbers 999, 911, and 112.

Justice Koome stressed that road safety is a collective responsibility.

“No single agency can address road carnage alone. We must collaborate as the justice system, civil society, and the public to save lives. Enforcement, public awareness, and coordination are critical,” she said.

The Chief Justice outlined that authorities will roll out diverse measures to enhance road safety and prevent traffic-related deaths, noting that many victims are often innocent pedestrians or motorists.

“We must put in place elaborate and diverse measures to enhance road safety and prevent traffic-related deaths. Most of the time, people are innocent, either as pedestrians or drivers and someone else causes the accident,” she said.

A key initiative is the deployment of mobile traffic courts, using both physical and digital platforms to fast-track traffic cases during the festive period.

“We will deploy mobile traffic courts using physical and digital means, with close collaboration. We will share this so that those who are charged can quickly get in touch with their lawyers,” Koome said.

The council also announced that EACC officers will be deployed along major highways to deter corruption, ensuring that no driver is tempted to offer a bribe, and that human rights violations are closely monitored.

Additionally, health agencies will provide standby ambulances for rapid response to accidents.

“The festive season is a time of celebration, but it should not be a time of tragedy on our roads. By following traffic rules, refusing to engage in corruption, and looking out for one another, Kenyans can reduce accidents, save lives, and ensure safer travel,” Koome concluded.

The NCAJ’s communiqué underlines that addressing road safety is a shared responsibility, reaffirming that legal, policy, and administrative reforms, alongside public cooperation, are essential to prevent traffic-related deaths and injuries during the festive season and beyond.

The post CJ Koome Urges Kenyans: “Do Not Bribe Officers” as Mobile Traffic Courts Roll Out for Festive Season appeared first on Insider Bits News.